B.Panigrahi,J. - (1.) This application has been filed under Article 215 of Constitution of India read with provisions of the contempt of Court of 1971 for willful and deliberate disovidence of this Division Benchs order dated 27th August, 1998 in the writ application being W.P.S.T. No. 284 of 1998. These writ petitioners have, inter alia, alleged that they had moved a petition before the State Administrative Tribunal being OA No. 1470 of 1998 for passing a mandate against the alleged contemnors for regularisation of their service. But the learned Administrative Tribunal has directed the respondent No. 2 to dispose of the petitioner's representation by passing a speaking order from the date of communication of the order after giving the representatives of the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. The order so passed shall also be communicated by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioners or their representatives within two weeks from the date of passing of the order. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioners have again filed a writ petition where this bench passed almost similar order directing the respondent No. 2, Director of Health Services to consider the writ petition as representation and pass final orders. While passing such order the repondents shall also keep in view of the earlier order passed by this Court and also the Tribunal in the matter of absorption of DDT Spray Workers. While passing such final order the respondent No. 2 shall give an opportunity of hearing to the applicants and pass final order by assigning good and sufficient reasons within four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. It was, inter alia, directed to keep 17 post of DDT Spray Workers vacant.
(2.) It is alleged that even though such order was passed and thereafter the Director of Health instead of giving the petitioners an opportunity of being absorbed and/or appointed two hundred outsiders were appointed newly which resulted in deliberate, intentional and wilful violation of the Court's order.
(3.) Mr. Milan Bhattacharya, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has advanced an inexorable plea that the State Government namely the respondent No. 2 had absorbed other DDT Spray Workers by following another Division Bench Judgment of this Court. If that be so, why there should be a departure in so far as the petitioners are concerned?;